PTAB

IPR2019-00069

ASUSTeK Computer Inc v. Maxell Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electric Camera with Variable Pixel Mixing/Culling for Zooming
  • Brief Description: The ’517 patent describes an electric camera with a high-resolution image sensor. The camera manages the large number of sensor pixels by vertically mixing or culling pixel signals at different intervals to match the output to a standard television display, particularly when a user requests a continuous change in view angle (zooming).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-11 are obvious over Misawa in view of Okino.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Misawa (Patent 6,700,607) and Okino (Patent 5,990,947).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Misawa disclosed an electric camera with a high-resolution image sensor (N=960 vertical pixels) that outputs to a standard display (M=240 effective scanning lines for NTSC), satisfying the N ≥ 3M limitation. Misawa taught driving the sensor to mix or cull pixels at different intervals (K) for different modes, such as K=4 for a normal image capturing mode and K=2 for a central part enlarging function. This combination of modes disclosed the claimed concept of using a first mixing interval (K1=4) for a first image (wide view) and a second, smaller interval (K2=2) for a second image (zoomed view). Okino was argued to supply the claimed limitation of a "zoom operation unit configured to receive a request to continuously change a view angle," as Misawa's enlargement function was discrete.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Okino’s continuous optical and electronic zoom functionality with Misawa’s camera. Misawa contemplated a zoom lens but did not detail its continuous operation or integration. A POSITA would have looked to a reference like Okino to implement a smooth, continuous zoom to improve the camera's functionality and focus control, which was a known objective in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted the combination would be a routine modification. Okino’s teachings on implementing a combined electronic and optical zoom system were compatible with the camera architecture in Misawa, which already included the core components of an image sensor, processing circuits, and a zoom lens, making the integration straightforward.

Ground 2: Claims 1-11 are obvious over Matsuzaka in view of Egawa.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Matsuzaka (Patent 6,757,013) and Egawa (Japanese Application H3-117985).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Matsuzaka disclosed an image pickup apparatus that performs continuous and simultaneous electronic and optical zooming, teaching the "continuously change a view angle" limitation. However, Matsuzaka did not specify the sensor size or the precise driving method for changing pixel resolution during zoom. Egawa was argued to cure this deficiency by disclosing a method for driving a high-resolution image sensor (N=982 vertical pixels) using different modes. Specifically, Egawa taught a first mode that mixes/culls at an interval of K=4 for a wide view and a second mode that reads a central portion of the sensor and mixes/culls at an interval of K=2 for a 2x enlarged view.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA implementing the continuous zoom system of Matsuzaka would naturally look to a reference like Egawa for an effective method of driving the image sensor. Egawa’s technique of varying the pixel mixing ratio (K) based on the zoom level would allow the camera to maintain resolution and avoid deterioration in image quality during the rapid zooming taught by Matsuzaka. This addressed a known problem in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner claimed the combination would be routine. Egawa provided the specific sensor driving logic and timing diagrams that could be readily implemented into Matsuzaka's more general system disclosure. Combining a known continuous zoom system with a known sensor driving method for digital zoom was a predictable and straightforward design choice for a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • “a zoom operation unit...” (Claim 1) and “an input unit...” (Claim 4): Petitioner argued these terms, which lack the word "means," are nonetheless means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. §112, para. 6. Petitioner contended the terms do not connote sufficiently definite structure to a POSITA and instead recite a function (e.g., "receive a request to continuously change a view angle"). The petition identified the corresponding structure in the ’517 patent's specification as the "zoom switch." This construction was central to mapping prior art switches (like the "zooming operation member 17" in Okino) to these limitations.
  • “signal processing unit...” (Claim 1): Petitioner noted that while the examiner treated this term as a means-plus-function limitation during prosecution, it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as it connotes sufficient structure to a POSITA (e.g., a known type of processor for image signals). However, Petitioner asserted that their invalidity analysis would not change even if the term were construed as a means-plus-function term.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-11 of Patent 9,544,517 as unpatentable.